Rushkoff on 9/11 conspiracy theorists
This will definitely be of interest to at least a couple of you: Conspiracy of dunces.
But strange and unexpected details don’t necessarily point to the fallacy of the central premise — especially when the alternative involves the active coordination of thousands, if not tens of thousands of citizens in a conspiracy to attack the United States. We must look at what each intriguing detail or inconsistency actually says about how the crime took place. Again, in the words of my favorite member of the NYPD, “These explanations are principally based on the fatally flawed idea that any confusion or misinterpretation or differing accounts in times of crisis must be the product of purposeful lies. They neglect the idea that in crises, and when there is mass confusion, people do not have specific recollections, only general ones that are highly subjective, such as what direction a plane sounded like it was coming from. Their stories seek to poke holes in prevailing truth, yet offer no alternative that could be seen as remotely plausible.”
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Well, since I’ve said the same thing less eloquently many times, I agree with the first two thirds of the piece. I think the danger is wasting time on nutty conspiracy theories detracts from time we should be debating how to win this war, not what to pin on the president today, but that would take us off subject. And it will certainly come up later in this thread, it always does. More importantly it takes time we should be spending with our families, balancing our check books, reading a good book, obsessing over teenage singers, that sort of thing.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Hi jbc, I am surprised and disappointed that you posted this article of tired old platitudes – it merely givees another journalist’s opinion rather than adding something of more substance* It seems you are not paying attention to the 911 debate, so I’ll not waste space trying to enlighten others about this but insted will simply defer to Simuvac’s terse comment on the Rushkoff opinion:
As for *something of more substance what about Alan Miller’s piece in OpEd news yesterday that quotes seven senior CIA veterans as basically stating that the Official Account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up”:
I think some of us need to review, again, who the liars are:
http://www.video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6255332520745371345&hl=en
Or for a more up to date review of the liars, material that Harkens back to 911 and brings us right back up to what the 180,000 American civilians (including Blackwater mercenaries) are now doing in Iraq: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkbve0a8qlk
September 24th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Knarly,
What I don’t think you understand is we have examined your evidence and have rejected it as foolish. And yet you seem to think if you pile more of the same on top of the old crap it will smell sweeter somehow. This article points back to the cast of thousands, you have never told us your theory of how all your conspiracies come together. I don’t expect you to have an answer because you haven’t had an original thought in your entire life, all you can do is regurgitate manufactured film clips and show your mastery of cut and paste. Even this juvenile boycott of debating me is a copycat of Matt. But like a coma patient I know you can hear me even when there isn’t even an eye twitch so show there is still brain activity.
So you through out some new “experts” that probably aren’t any more credible than the old ones and a couple clips of some left wing comedians trashing Bush as new evidence. Watch Garofalo and Mahr on O’Reilly sometime Bill is respectful of them and they are respectful of him, get them in the friendly confines of a circle of libs and they sure talk tough.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
shcb, Their trash talk was juvenile, but that was 2% of the content. As usual, you take the least relevant 2% and make a big deal out of it. That’s why it is little use talking with you.
Why is it that the people like shcb who parrot the official government line call others un-original? Why is it that they accuse others of having “theories” when they are only looking for answers that the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory does not answer? Why is it that they accuse others of being “foolish” when their belief in the first theory the government gave them is unwavering despite volumes of evidence provided by highly qualified independent people? The answer to all of that is that they attack because it is the only defense that they have, other than obfuscation.
Here is the Conclusion from another skeptic, not so foolish:
September 25th, 2007 at 9:52 am
shcb keeps asking for “my theory”, as in how could a cast of thousands all keep a secret.
First, there have been whistleblowers and they have been silenced (do your own research, but start with Sibel Edmunds and you might end with the non-disclosure statements signed by victim’s families in order to receive compensation from the 911 victim family fund.)
Second, although there is precedence for successful conspiracies involving thousands in the past (e.g. Operation Gladio) shcb digresses into pure speculation into how many perpetrators would have had full or partial knowledge for 911 to have been an inside job. That might be where a future real investigation would lead. In the meantime, especially for dorks like shcb who feel the need to jump three steps ahead of the evidence and see concocted theories as to how that might be possible, there is scenario 404 (previous references to which shcb has conveniently forgotten) :
http://www.11research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html
September 25th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Knarly, your link to the opinions of the Leggy chemist is active, but your scenario 404 link is dead. Perhaps Bush’s demolition team got to the site before I clicked on it…
September 25th, 2007 at 11:41 am
TV, thanks. The link should be:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html
It is about 4 years old but I’m sure it has been updated.
By the way, ignorance about old material (e.g. scenario 404) while salivating over tired old opinions like Rushkloff’s are clear signs that a person is uninformed and has a remarkable lack of objectivity.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Ah… uninformed, with a remarkable lack of objectivity… only among those who don’t share the same objective…
September 25th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
says the pot to the kettle
September 25th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Hey, hey guys. These are just theories, remember. We shouldn’t consider anything fact because there is still Uncertainty and Debate! In the meantime, I’ll keep believing that evolution is false, 9/11 was orchestrated by the neo-cons, global warming is caused by farting cows, and there are no gays in Iran.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I admit I don’t buy into the 9/11 conspiracy thing, but that video knarly posted about the blatant lies and contradictions over 9/11/Iraq/Al Qadea, etc. is pretty hard to argue with. I noticed TeacherVet and SHCB steered clear from commenting on that video. So I’ll post it again.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6255332520745371345&hl=en
Care to explain, gentlemen?
September 26th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Not hard to explain at all, NL. Take a bunch of snippits, totally out of context, consistently snipping the beginnings and endings of sentences, and you can have anyone saying anything you wish. Let me illustrate…
From your own recent post, yesterday at 1:33 pm, on the “Scott Adams on Ahmadinijad” string:
“… to put this into some sort of context for you … I just don’t want to start demonizing … Bush, … who values freedom, democracy, human rights and justice for all … He is however regarded much higher by the rest of the East, mostly due to his willingness to stand up to “The Great Satan.”
Those are all your words – see how stringing together snippits works to relay the wrong message? If I wanted to do so, I could easily find plenty of rhetoric from Knarly, inky-doo and other leftists that would support, enhance and reinforce your falsely portrayed praise of Bush.
With little effort, I could easily use that same methodology to produce a video in which Democrat politicians actually seem to be supporting our troops, their mission(s), and the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan – but it would certainly be false.
Speaking of those great Democrat leaders, I wonder (not) why snippits of their identical charges – dating from 1998 to 2003 – against Saddam were not used in the video…
September 26th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
TV, that’s bogus.
First, “stringing together snippets” is called editing.
Of course anyone can edit to create the wrong message or impression, as you did with NL’s text. I’d call that creating an onion.
It takes talent to edit where the clear meaning of the related context is maintained, and the video is a good example of that. I’d call that creating a peach.
Your demented logic is that since both are the result of edits, a peach must be an onion. That is bogus and illogical, but rwnj’s love using it in their misguided attempts to discredit out of hand anything they oppose that has been edited, such as Michael Moore films and early versions of Loose Change.
Are you saying that Rumsfeld never said he knew were the WMD’s would be found. or that he later denied saying that when challenged by Ray McGovern? Are you saying that he never said that his administration never suggested Saddam was a nuclear threat? If you try really hard, you might find one or two significant inaccurate quotes in the video – I really doubt it – but that does only means that the dozen or so other significant quotes relating to the deceptions are VALID.
September 26th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
You’re right, but it takes little talent to edit out the full context, leaving only the phrase that serves a political agenda. Let’s take one of the Cheney snips for starters, examining the method of creating their onion:
“….. and we believe (hardly a declaration of known fact) he has reconstituted nuclear weapons…..”
What did he say at the beginning of that sentence, and at the end of it? What was the full context, and what prompted the full statement?
More importantly, was he repeating a 1998 quote from Democrat political leaders, or a quote from one of them sometime between 1998 and 2002? Who initially made the identical statement, and when? How about the second repetition? Or the third, etc.?
For the sake of consistency here, if Cheney was simply regurgitating a quotation from an earlier source, is he then exonerated (as with Ahmadinijad’s “misinterpreted” quotation recently discussed)?
September 26th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
I wrote this before your last two posts. If it sounds out of context, sorry.
That’s a better answer than I could have given so I’ll just ditto. I know Knarly gets upset with me because I don’t watch all these film strips (the kids here don’t even know what I’m talking about when I mention film strips TV) back to Knarly, I don’t watch or comment on many of his strips because as you say they are usually out of context, but even when they are in context they frequently are out of order in terms of a timeline. Saying Thomas Jefferson was an evil man because he owned slaves and owning slaves is unconstitutional is a conclusion based on two independently true statements that are false together. This is Michael Moore’s stock and trade. These productions can be interesting but they should not be used to form an opinion. I’ve been chiding Knarly about being unimaginative, on several occasions I have asked him to tell me if there was anything important in one of the film strips he asked me to watch, he usually just posts more of the same or berates me for not watching. I wonder if he can even form an opinion of what he watches or if his senses are titillated and that is enough. I’m not being critical of Knarly this time, I just wonder if this is a product of this sensory overload form of persuasion.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Teachervet,
That was a nice reply and full of irony.
To paraphrase your earlier post, you accused the video’s creators of editing maliciously to distort the truth.
Your latest reply is ironic because it selectively picked one item (Cheney’s belief that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons) to speculate about, and then, based on those speculations alone, you made unfounded allegations.
The irony is that your reply was a worse transgression of honesty than what you accuse the video of doing!
Also, you picked one example of the administration’s …what about the 6 or 12 (or ?) that were present in the video? As I said earlier:
You did not even prove that one quote was wrong, you merely made unfounded allegations based on your wild speculations.
Come on, I expect more from you. This should be easy if what you say is true, I mean it is not something difficult like trying to prove that members of the administration were complicit in committing terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 or anything.
So, Mr. Teachervet, do you think you can do better with another response or do you want to save yourself a whole lot of fruitless effort and just admit that the video is fundamentally correct?
http://www.video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6255332520745371345&hl=en
September 27th, 2007 at 8:54 am
SHCB – please tell your president when speaking to children not to make an idiot of himself. It is frightening for them to ponder that this man has his button on weapons of mass destruction and yet he cannot even grasp the most basic of grammar. He should realize that as a president of the United States it is a momentous occasion for a child to hear him speak in person and children learn in moments like those.
http://www.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070926/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_bush_grammar
September 27th, 2007 at 10:37 am
What is fundamentally bad about this video: http://www.video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6255332520745371345&hl=en is that its edited in a really bad amateurish and entertainment still. The only thing I can say is that having watched and lived through all of this. I do remember most of these press conferences and the general shift in our stated motivation for being in Iraq and repeated protestations that we always said we were there for whatever the current stated reason was. Its a very 1984 ‘We were always at war with Oceania. ‘ type of response. It is because we say it is.
That being said that video sucks. It only clicked for me because my actual memories of events filled in the necessary context for the clips.
Again this being said I think in examining conspiracy theory we have to look at a few of the root causes of what we’re addressing here. First is the nature of people who believe in conspiracy theories. Theres something to be said about this in terms of why people get behind this. Conspiracies remove the need for personal responsibility and obliterate the capacity for positive change. The very nature of the conspiracy is that it is omnipotent. It acts with impunity and destroys all who may challenge it, as a result theres a level of freedom in embracing conspiracy theory since you personally will never be able to do anything about it, you are free of having to expend any effort. It also grants one the ability to play other roles, such as selfless martyr, the wise one, etc.
The second issue here is the nature of our beliefs as they relate to our personal identities. Human beings are, so far as we know, the only species capable of asking the question ‘Who am I?’ This is a complicated question and most humans seem to answer this by affiliating themselves with a belief system. This can be nationalistic, religious, socio-political, etc. Who am I is answered with responses such as ‘I’m an American. I’m a Democrat. I’m a Christian.’ and the like. Most belief systems are not based on anything that can be established empirically. We embrace beilefs out of the instinct to define ourselves, our desire to belong, and our personal life experiences.
What does this have to do with the argument here? In defining ourselves with a belief system, we are forced to embrace ideas and information that support or belief and repudiate that which does not. This again isn’t an empirical system of weighing facts with logic, its a system based on embracing things that support our belief/identity system and rejecting things that support it. This is a self defense mechanism, because if the facts don’t jive with our beliefs, its destroys our concept of self. No one is really looking at things with logic or subjecting them to rigorous analysis, we’re just cherry picking factoids that bolster our belief systems.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Jason, I don’t take issue with your dislike but otherwise validation of the video.
So you think that to understand the root causes of what we are talking about here requires a psychoanalysis of people who believe in conspiracy theories?
That’s great, but you forgot to define what you are talking about, i.e. a conspiracy would mean a secret or clandestine plan to do something bad, and a theory is a stated suspicion or hypothesis. So, for example, when members of the administration stated that they believe that Saddam and his men had WMD’s or had secretly conspired to reconstitute an Iraqi nuclear program, those members of the administration were putting forth a “conspiracy theory” for their followers. People who believed those accusations (conspiracy theories) are ipso facto conspiracy theorists
In your psychoanalysis of conspiracy theorists, you make a lot of statements about the reason some people feel the need to fall into that role. Some fit, (i.e. by going along with the official conspiracy theory that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program they could take on the role of “the wise one” who knows so much better how to protect the world than do the sceptics of that theory. The “self-less martyr” role does not fit as well, unless you take a global perspective wherein the rest of the world was very sceptical of the US administration’s claims and yet the USA charged forth without UN approval.) Whatever.
It seems you are more interested in psychoanalysing the people who challenge official government conspiracy theories, and attempt to present them as the real “conspiracy theorists”. Uh huh. Let’s see how that fits. So, if a person makes an decision that his government is lying or otherwise involved in some conspiracy and that person sets out to do whatever it takes to set things right, then that person is taking the easy way out and is “free of having to expend any effort”? No, that doesn’t quite fit.
Likewise, roles of the “selfless martyr” or “the wise one” are entertaining to throw about as insults when you present them in a pejorative light as you do. However, they may in fact be noble and apt descriptions for some people such as Ray McGovern, Sibel Edmunds or Prof. Jones.
As for the question “who am I” you provided some very shallow examples of answers (e.g. a Republican, Christian, American) . Most people I know and respect would answer something along the lines that they are spiritual beings whose true nature they may never fully comprehend but that they are certain that if there is a purpose for their existence on this earth it is to live with the awareness that the pure lights of love and truth exist and to strive in everything they do to be a beacon of those lights for others. Race, creed, nationality are mere trappings.
So Jason, thank you for your exposition on the way that one defines themselves will paint them into a corner about what they think they can believe or not believe. It helped me to understand the psychology of people like shcb, whose motto might well be “I am a true blue American and I exist to support in every way possible my troops who kill evildoers for the betterment of the entire world!”
September 27th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
LMAO – TeacherVet, your attempt at context comparison is so ridiculous it doesn’t even warrant a response.
It’s quite evident that you support Bush and company NO MATTER how much evidence of lies and contradiction is presented before you. You are an idealogue, pure and simple. I’m also thinking that you might be a little bit retarded as well, so I think I will leave you alone.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Dude, you forgot the y. My parents thought that was cute. I couldn’t get one of those license plates for by bike as a kid though. I’ll give you a pass on that one.
I guess for lack of definition of terms I was referring to the general psychology of conspiracy theory adherents. I was actually taking most of this from my knowledge of UFO and NWO conspiracy theory and extrapolating it into a generality. The key feature of this kind of conspiracy is that it is omnipotent, as I have previously stated. It accomplishes things without consideration of logistical possibility and doesn’t rely on empirical evidence to tie its various threads together. This in no way implies that there are not real conspiracies, Watergate, Iran-Contra and assassination attempts on Castro come to mind as real world examples.
In terms of the role play of the wise one or the selfless martyr your example here both illustrates and misses my point:
“It seems you are more interested in psychoanalysing the people who challenge official government conspiracy theories, and attempt to present them as the real “conspiracy theorists”. Uh huh. Let’s see how that fits. So, if a person makes an decision that his government is lying or otherwise involved in some conspiracy and that person sets out to do whatever it takes to set things right, then that person is taking the easy way out and is “free of having to expend any effort”? No, that doesn’t quite fit.”
While I did say that belief in an omnipotent conspiracy theory can allow the believer a comfort in action I said it also allows them to play different roles. To define what I mentioned briefly that is to say the wise one being the individual who believes they are the holders of a truth that others are two ignorant to perceive. Likewise the selfless martyr assures us he is fighting on the frontline against the conspiracy even though he is risking much in doing so. In your above paragraph you appear to be taking on both roles. These can be taken as a pejorative in the context of describing the conspiracy theory adherent, but this is not my intention. The fact that you take it that way is telling though.
Regarding the examples of the tie in to the system of personal belief; the examples of answers to the question ‘Who am I?’ illustrate several points. Your interpretation of the answers to the question of self as shallow isn’t exactly the point. While I will wholeheartedly agree that many people embrace a shallow definition of the example terms it could also be recognized that the terms in question could also be described as convenient labels for broad and complex ideas and belief systems. In this regard your assertion about ‘most of the people you know’ and their self definition could be read as the same thing, just without the convenient one word label. No, the point there is that human beings internalize systems of belief, not as the most rational option presented to them, but as a means answering an internal question. The result, as I’ve stated, is that when a component of the belief system is identified as illogical then the individual must resort to attacks and denigration of the Other as a means of self preservation. This is displayed in the attitude of righteousness, in the belief that one has enough of ‘it’ figured out. The result is that people are intractable in face of whatever facts in a given situation. There is never the question of ‘Do I have all the information?’ or ‘Even though I seem to have this figured out, is there a possibility that I am incorrect?’ In this regard I do not speak of any specific individual but of a general tendency of all die hard believers. Again though, if a specific reader here does not see this as applicable to themselves because ‘they have it figured out’ then that further illustrates my point.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Again I want to reiterate I speak on a general trend. There’s nothing saying there isn’t anything conspiratorial about any of the events regarding the Iraq War. I’m speaking about the type of conspiracy Rushkoff is addressing directly.
To me there are basically two grim view on it. Again this is just my opinion:
First is that there is a conspiracy, not an omnipotent one, but a bunch of powerful people that think they can get away with anything they wish, and we were just outright lied too.
The second is that our intelligence gathering capability is so awful and incompetent that we literally don’t know what we’re looking at.
Neither is particularly comforting.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Jayson – thanks for the Y pass. re your long 2:17 pm post: you leave little to argue with and I won’t challenge your observations, except to caution you about absolutes, there are varying degrees of self-deception at play in all of us.
re: your last post, perhaps there are more than two grim views on it, give it some more thought and so will I. On a related note, after seeing the film Syriana last year, I was shaken not by the movie but that the “authorities” that be would let such a movie be released. It was like they were saying: see, this is the world and this is what we do and we don’t give a damn if you know it because we are in charge and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Obviously being shaken like that had to rest on a (mis?)taken belief that the “authorities” controlled such things, they might or might not sometimes or whatever. Just food for thought, and a good movie.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Caution taken. I try to ask limit the amount of self-deception I inflict on myself. Subjecting myself to commentary here is a good way to get a 2nd opinion, so to speak.
Syriana was a really good movie. I’m still not sure what I thought of it. I didn’t really think it was faulting realpolitik, but then again I never really read any of the interviews with the writer, director or stars.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Flaunting…
September 27th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
NL, I LMAO2 while splicing your words to alter your meaning; as surely did the “editors” of the video. The context comparisons were comparable, and that’s what made it funny.
It’s quite evident that you support any anti-Bush groups NO MATTER how much evidence of lies and contradiction is presented before you. You are (also) an idealogue, pure and simple. Your own statement to that effect was apparently intended as criticism, but can be aptly applied to each of us.
Knarly, I never intended to respond to every idiotic insult in the video. The examples of unclassy garbage being screamed at Barbara Bush and various speakers at news conferences speaks for itself. Those idiots have a right to make fools of themselves, and the video’s editors have a right to give evidence of their lack of objectivity by including those clips. Did those sound bites exemplify the “most basic of grammar” grasp that Bush lacks?
My post to which you responded consisted of a fragment of one sentence by Cheney, followed by almost a dozen questions; none of which you attempted to answer. No allegations (as you alleged) – no speculation (as you speculated) – no declarative statements – therefore, no dishonesty — just questions. As with the producers of the video, you refused to put Cheney’s “edited” statement into context. If you can’t do so with a single example, as anticipated, there is no reason for me to waste my time addressing all 6 or 12 (or ?) of them?
September 28th, 2007 at 4:34 am
NL,
just so we can put this in context, can you tell me where and when any of these clips came from? just the show/speech and date are enough, if the transcript is handy maybe you could post it. Just 1 or 2 is enough. Thanks
September 28th, 2007 at 8:44 am
LOL,
TV, we were talking about the “How to make a Mad American” video, not the Bill Maher panel discussion. Are you rwnj’s really that scatterbrained or was that a clumsy attempt to obfuscate? Probably the former. I know it is hard for you but please try to stay on track. Remember now, this is the video we were all talking about:
You questioned it’s veracity, I and others here say it is fundamentally valid. If you have a problem with it and can demonstrate that your problem with it has some merit, then I at least will consider looking more closely at it. Until then, this is your problem so deal with it like a grown up instead of a spoiled little short haired retarded delinquent.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:47 am
I think TV and I would agree the clips are correct in as much as the people said what they said, we are just saying they were edited to make the meaning of the quote different. For instance if Rumsfield said months before the invasion “based on all our intelligence and the intelligence gathering agencies of the world including the United Nations we have concluded SADAM HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, for instance in the 1980’s he possessed thousands of artillery shells containing nerve agents, these have been under the guard of United Nations inspectors for the last decade. Those inspectors assure me they have not been moved WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE, we don’t know if he has nuclear capabilities, but we have interviewed defectors who say HE IS DEFINITELY WORKING TO PRODUCE A NUCLEAR BOMB when sanctions are lifted.”
Now only the four phrases in caps of this small portion of an interview are used in the production and they are interdispersed among 40 or 50 other snippets out of order. The meaning is completely different, that is why I would like to see the transcript of some of those interviews.
Good luck finding where those snippets came from. Preemptive, you are going to say “find them yourself” my answer is it’s your evidence, you have the responsibility to provide sources.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:50 am
shcb says “The meaning is completely different”
completely different ??? I think not. The impression given by the whole quoted paragraph is virtually identical to the impression from the quotes. When you analyse the actual words then you start to see the deception (on the part of the administration). Their case was that he had WMD and must be stopped before the world finds a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud, their case was not that he had WMD but it’s okay because UN has had them under guard for the last decade
It was the ANTI-WAR activists who were screaming the message that attacking Saddam was unnecessary because the WMD’s were contained, UN guarded, & decayed to virtual uselessness, while it was Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Rice et al who were pounding home the message that they had “incontrovertable proof” (Powell’s words to the UN?) that Saddam was actively pursuing further WMD programs.
Close shcb, but no cigar.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:44 am
That’s exactly what I was asking for also, shcb. Thanks for going further by actually providing an example of clipping segments to alter meaning, as I did similarly with a NL post.
Knarly claims that the UPPER-CASE statements in your example have the same meaning with or without including the lower-case phrases. Huh? If only the highlighted clips were shown in the video:
-“Saddam has weapons of mass destruction”
-“We know where they are”
-“He is definitely working to produce a nuclear bomb”
It doesn’t dishonestly/falsely alter the meaning of the full paragraph? You know that isn’t true, and that’s exactly what was done by the producers of your linked video.
Knarly: On DemocraticUnderground.com, Gil Christner satirically wrote that Powell “offered incontrovertible proof of the long-sought-after link” between Saddam and al Qaeda – but the descriptive words were Christner’s, not Powell’s; and the topic was the possible link between terrorists, not WMD. Not even close, so no cigar.
Searches for variations of “incontrovertible proof” with the names you provided – Rumsfield/Cheney/Bush/Rice/et al – seems to yield no results.
You don’t need to waste time and bandwidth with yet another link to the same video to support your source – the first five worked fine. The several questions I asked previously…
September 28th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
TV, that’s right, “incontrovertible proof” is not what Powell said (hence my “?” after my statement to that effect, as I was not sure.)
This is in fact what Powell said:
The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are U.S. sources. And some are those of other countries. Some of the sources are technical, such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites. Other sources are people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to.
I cannot tell you everything that we know. But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling.
What you will see is AN ACCUMULATION OF FACTS and disturbing patterns of behavior. THE FACTS ON IRAQ’S BEHAVIOUR DEMONSTRATE THAT Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort – NO EFFORT – TO DISARM as required by the international community.
Indeed, THE FACTS and Iraq’s behavior SHOW that Saddam Hussein and his regime ARE CONCEALING THEIR EFFORTS TO PRODUCE MORE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. .
and also:
My colleagues, EVERY STATEMENT I make today is BACKED UP BY SOURCES, SOLID SOURCES. THESE ARE NOT ASSERTIONS. WHAT WE”RE GIVING YOU ARE FACTS and conclusions based on SOLID INTELLIGENCE.
So TV, apparently all Powell was saying was that the USA had facts which showed conclusively that Saddam was concealing efforts to produce more WMD’s. (Let’s not bother getting into the “facts” that they were suppressing which showed conclusively that he posed no threat. Unless you want to research that too, in which case I am all ears.)
September 28th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
In light of Rushkoff (a media personality and author) and his opinions, and Jayson’s treatise that in part dealt with the resistance to objectively consider items that conflict with one’s core belief structure (ergo self-identity), I would be interested in hearing comments about this Sept. 20 article by James R. Carr, a registered professional geological engineer:
http://www.news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070920/OPED04/709200328/1102/OPED
in particular:
and
and
September 28th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
That’s bull TV. If I am presented with grossly damaging evidence against a political person I support, that person no longer has my support.l
Example: I thought Bush’s strength and the way he steered the US after 9/11 was very admirable, and I really liked him.
But then he led the US into it’s biggest foreign policy disaster, ever. Totally f*cking up the world, which is now 10x more dangerous. So now I no longer support him.
But you still do. Because you are an idealogue. You put petty politics before the good of the US and the world. And it’s really a shame.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
SHCB, I think has been psoting what you have been looking for. Hell, I can almost remember some of those classic speeches/interviews word for word, such as, “We will if fact, be greeted as liberators.” – Dick Cheney
“Iraq’s oil wealth will finance the reconstruction.” – Paul Wolfowitz
“The war could last days, weeks, I doubt six months” – Don Rumsfeld
Wow, what amazing forsight these tools had, eh?
September 28th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Sorry, that first line should read, “I think knarly has been posting…”
Just blazed a fatty (its Friday, just got off work). Halo 3 time!
September 28th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I just finished reading the James R. Carr article. I then went and read up on the official explanations and theories for the structural collapse. The main problem I am having here is that I’m not an engineer. In this situation I’m relying on experts to interpret data for me. I suppose I could start looking for motive in the purveyors of various explanations. The bottom line is that I really don’t know, I’d be open to hearing new data though.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:39 am
I’ll probably hate myself in the morning for responding to this latest conspiracy “proof”. The regurgitation of this same old tired story about the temperature of burning fuel, minimal damage to building 7, yadda yadda yadda, is the result of truthers ignoring the details of the official explanations and continuing to spout the same stories as if no answers are available.
In short and generalized terms, the planes caused vital structural damage to the integrity of the building on multiple floors, the ignition of all the flammable items within the building adding greatly to the temperatures reached, and the collective result was a weakening of the strength of the steel of around 60% to 70% (roughly) of its original capability. Building 7 had much more damage from debris than some would have expected. There are pictures and witness reports that back up the level of this damage.
I’m not going to link to all the sites that are readily available thru engineering journals, agency websites, and collective sources such as Popular Mechanics. (these will all be discarded out of hand by truthers as compromised studies.)
The point is that arguments such as the cut and pasted comments above by Knarly simply list the same points without any acknowledgement of the way the points have refuted for years now. Therefore, you can just keep posting such things (thousands of times on thousands of websites) and give the impression that no answers have ever been given.
I’m going back to radio silence……..
September 29th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Craig and Jayson,
If you want to try a little lab experiment, go to the hardware store and buy a piece of steel, a piece of 1/8 or 3/16 by 1 will do fine, it should be under $10.00. Try and bend it with your hands, if you try hard enough you can bend the 1/8” with your hands but don’t, just bend it and let it flex back to shape. Next heat it with a propane torch if you have one or put it directly in the flames of your propane gas grill. I have provided a link to a color chart for steel at various temperatures, you are looking for 1500 degrees or what we call in the trade, cherry red. Localized heating is fine, just a stripe across the steel. Now grab each end of the steel with pliers, don’t touch the steel, at this temperature, skin doesn’t burn, it melts. Now see how easy it is to bend the steel. When you are finished be careful if you use water to cool the steel, the steam can cause a painful burn. But this isn’t enough heat to weaken a building.
http://www.threeplanes.net/toolsteel.html
Jayson, you made the comment that your parents thought something was funny. I take it from that remark that you are young. You seem quite intelligent, debating these 911 conspiracy guys is fun and an interesting exercise but understand they all fall into two groups, liars and those have been duped by liars, Knarly falls into the second group. At first I thought they were just uninformed, but the more I see the more I am convinced they are liars. Things like the hole that a plane wouldn’t fit through at the Pentagon being an exit wound instead of an entrance wound, this steel thing, molten “metal” in the basement by originators of the myth that gets changed into “molten steel” as it is filtered down through the blogs (aluminum melts at 1100 degrees). If you are interested you should spar with these guys, it is instructive of how to talk to people who place ideology over truth. They call themselves “truthers” but that name could not be further from that. There are various reasons they are who they are and believe what they believe or say they believe. Some are just normal conspiracy nuts, they seek easy answers to difficult questions and they need answers to every question, just like religious fanatics. In this instance there are also people who hate Bush, America, any government, war, or republicans or some combination of those. Throw in the folks who just like to be contrary, it makes them feel smarter than they are and you have a hodgepodge of people who start with a conclusion and work backward from there. So have fun with it but watch, they will never give you supporting evidence from any website that is not named 911…. They have invented their own science and evidence to support their claims. If you notice, my supporting documentation is from a woodworking website, that got their information from The Machinery Handbook, I own two editions of this book, the oldest is the 11th edition, 1942, no fabricated science here.
September 30th, 2007 at 1:13 am
There were three responses to:
The first (Jayson) noted a common handicap of not having the personal expertise thus having to rely on conflicting views of experts and factoring in their motives; yet he says he is open to new data.
New data is usually posted at http://www.911blogger.com first.
Sorting out conflicting expert views is an arduous task. We have mechanisms to deal with that, e.g. law courts, commissions of inquiry, the scientific process in which hypothesis are re-tested by others, and debate through the exchange of papers addressing specific details and assumptions until each is resolved. A truly independent and comprehensive commission of inquiry could deal with sorting out conflicting expert views. Unfortunately, the omissions and distortions documented as being contained in the 911 Commission Report are so numerous and egregious that it itself is further evidence of the deceit that warrants far more serious investigation.
For now, the best I have seen of a detailed point by point analysis of the conflicting expert views and their motives is the David Ray Griffin book “Debunking 9/11 Debunking an answer to Popular Mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory” which cuts through the crap on both sides like a knife through butter: http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6608814-8156848?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174101902&sr=1-1 (it should be at your library too.)
The second (Craig) contains much “regurgitation” of the same old tired debate which appears to have ceased in his mind as soon as authoritative sounding officially sanctioned experts issued their reports. Never mind that the FEMA report authors had this to say about their improbable speculation about why building 7 collapsed:
For Craig, he has heard the answers he needed to hear and any attempt to suggest he read past the Popular Mechanics opinions gets him upset. That’s probably because they also screwed up their page 86 instructions on how to build a radio and now Craig is frustrated at “going back to radio silence” because the damn thing doesn’t work.
Craig’s post seems to be a textbook case of cognitive dissonance.
The third (shcb) contains an invitation to try a little experiment (Jayson, under no circumstances are you to go into a tool shed with that man!) It is hard to figure why shcb would think a propane torch (approx. max. temp. in air 2000 deg. C) compares with the 400 – 600 deg. C (or so?) fires. Or why he calls the molten steel a “myth” when there are dozens of corroborating reports but please see these pictures (see page 2): http://www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf
Finally, there is shcb’s speculative rationalization about why people hold opinions contrary to his own about 9/11. He does not even realise that his views are befitting a character within an Orwellian nightmare.
September 30th, 2007 at 6:27 am
There! That’s what I’m talking about! Knarly doesn’t want you to do any research on your own, you must only listen to his experts. It doesn’t matter how hot the torch is we are only concerned with how hot the STEEL gets. I have made my living as a machinist since 1977, you do the math.
I looked at the paper showing the molten “metal”, he did indeed call it steel, and gave pretty solid evidence it was structural steel. The portion of the article I read seemed well done, I have no problem with the scientific aspects of what he was saying. A couple points, has anyone in your research pose as a possibility that a sort of blast furnace could have been formed underground in the pile of rubble. The air being sucked into the fires like a forest fire producing its own wind? That would seem a more viable possibility. If you could have gained access to the strategic locations to plant charges of thermite I would think they would have been as small a charge as possible, so there would not have been quantities of thermite in the rubble to continue melting steel for weeks on end especially since the reaction only takes a fraction of a second. He did say the reaction once started could continue feeding itself for weeks, if insulated as it was, it would require oxygen of course. The thermite carries its own oxygen but once that is gone air from above would be needed. Has anyone in your group investigated how much heat is generated by steel and concrete grinding together? That would seem to be a question that would naturally be asked and researched.
September 30th, 2007 at 7:52 am
A little house cleaning, there are some things on this thread that have gone unanswered .
Knarly, Sept 28 10:50
The discussion is about using out of context snippets not whether the war was justified.
NL, Sept 28 13:32
The Cheney quote, we were. Not by everyone of course but we were greeted as liberators.
Wolfowitz, we could use the oil revenue but when we floated that one, the liberals were screaming “that will make us look imperialistic” so we didn’t, which way would you prefer? We have settled for a middle ground, keeping the oil flowing keeps the prices stable and low.
The Rumsfeld quote; I picked this one to do a little more research because I remembered at the time I thought “that was a stupid remark” I was right. You are also right, below is a transcript of the speech given at Aviano Air Force base in Italy on Feb 7,2003. As far as I can see the remark is not taken out of context for what I assume are your intentions. There is nothing in the speech that would lead one to believe anything other than what those words said. He believed the war would be short. The only explanation I can offer to the contrary is that he was referring to major operations. And in that regard he would have been correct. This speech was given about 7 weeks prior to the invasion, Bush’s speech on the Abraham Lincoln was given a month after the start of the war and as you remember he declared that major operations were complete. If his remarks were about major operations and not the ongoing urban fighting Rumsfeld didn’t voice those opinions very well, but it was in the Q&A section of the event so these weren’t prepared remarks, and someone who gives hundreds of speeches a year is bound to make a goof every now and then.
I will admit it was a stupid remark, I don’t see it anything other than that.
See how it is done, one remark, analyze in context with a timeline to put it in perspective, I have given my opinioned conclusion, you can give yours but no fast and loose editing to make the quote something it wasn’t.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1900
September 30th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
shcb starts off saying molten steel in WTC rubble is a myth, and implies that any molten metal present in the debris is may be aircraft aluminum.
shcb is wrong, as that description does not fit the evidence nor explain the molten metal below WTC 7. The error is due to ignorance, obviously shcb is not familiar with the basic situation at ground zero.
Miraculously, shcb actually views a link provided to Dr. Jones paper.
He then admits that Dr. Jones “gave pretty solid evidence it was structural steel.” (Uh huh, shcb “pretty solid evidence” indeed, and by the way it is evidence AVOIDED like the plague by NIST and other gatekeepers of the official conspiracy theory.)
What does shcb then do? Does he try to shrink his ignorance by looking further into the evidence that abounds in Dr. Jones paper and elsewhere? No. He speculates.
shcb forms a theory: “…pose as a possibility that a sort of blast furnace could have been formed underground in the pile of rubble. The air being sucked into the fires like a forest fire producing its own wind? That would seem a more viable possibility.” shcb’s theory does not fit with the evidence. Evidence such as molten metal was observed flowing downward into the wreckage early on, before being in contact with the underground fires – fires which were smouldering and starved of oxygen the opposite of blast furnaces.
I’m not ruling out that at least three separate blast furnace conditions miraculously set themselves up all by themselves in the rubble under each of WTC 1, 2, and 7. After all, one day that might be considered in a REAL INVESTIGATION. However, the likelihood that shcb is wrong again is close to 100%.
Too bad shcb could not read a little more of the Dr. Jones paper which shcb says “seemed well done, I have no problem with the scientific aspects of what he was saying ” but perhaps the cognitive dissonance was ringing too loudly in his ears. Will shcb open his mind a little now that he has learned of another anomaly that appears to directly conflict with what he has been told by his eminently trustworthy government? Not a chance; shcb has got Doublethink mastered at a level Orwell might never have dreamed possible in a real human being.
shcb also asks if anyone considered how much heat is generated by steel and concrete grinding together. He seems to be suggesting friction from the collapse or moving rubble might have generated heat contributing to the melting steel. Uh-huh. There has been extensive dialogue between the physicists and the emerging theme is that there is a tremendous energy DEFICIT after one accounts for the speed of collapse, degree of pulverization, ejection of steel beams some 500 feet laterally, and them there molten metal pools. That is but one of about a dozen reasons why high explosives have been brought into working theories, because it is one thing that fits the evidence.
As for how much thermite would be required, necessary or desired – go speculate on that all you want shcb. I am finished with your games.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:41 am
I doubt we’re done, you won one point, you won it fair and square, I concede that one point, let the games continue.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:17 am
I won? (?!!!) Who are you and what did you do with shcb?
Perhaps the games can continue (with the shcb imposter); but first, here is a little entertainment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoJJIYWMZlY
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:20 am
just about the time I really start to dislike you, ya make me laugh, damn that sense of humor
October 25th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Devvy on Bozos like Rushkoff who Ridicule and Slander those who want the Truth:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd317.htm
October 26th, 2007 at 10:28 am
And if you wonder why you never hear about any of this stuff on the “real” news, there are plenty of points to ponder here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/12188
Sample:
October 26th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I’m with Rushkoff. A better debunking, however, is at
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html#feature
Besides, if Bush wanted the towers to fall, he has more than enough influence and connections in Saudi Arabia to ensure that it would happen- exactly as it did.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Mr. Bad Dolphin,
You have got to be kidding. That was one of the most un-informed and mis-informed debunking site I have seen yet. It’s like a six year old with severe ADHD doing a book report on Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men.
Also, your reference to the Bush Family’s Saudi connections is bizzare. Are you trying to suggest the Bush family’s close connections to the bin Laden family played a role, or that most of the 19 hijackers (who were in fact Saudi Arabian nationals) played a part in 911 as a result of Bush having influence in Suadi Arabia? That’s nuts. So, hypethetically of course, how exactly would Bush use his family’s Saudi Arabian connections to make towers in Manhattan expolode? I can see absolutely NO realistic scenario for how Dubbya could orchestrate such a plot with his Saudi connections – please Badphin won’t you enlighten us?
October 31st, 2007 at 5:06 am
Bad Dolphin,
Don’t let Knarly scare you off, this is a tactic untrained dog use as a defense. They charge and bark usually moving slightly sideways so they can run at any time. The trained dog has confidence so he will confront you head on. I’m sure your site is just fine, notice he didn’t give any examples of what was wrong, you were lucky, he has thousands of pages of nonsense he can use.
You make a valid point, if Bush wanted thousands of Americans to die he could just make a call to someone over there and say do you know someone who knows someone who can make this happen, the answer would be yes and that would be that. Or even more simply, he could just send in troops, he is the president after all.
But that would be way too simple. For one thing it defies logic that any president would do that especially this president. So when there is no logic we invent it. The more convoluted this invented logic the better, makes it harder to follow the path that leads to nowhere, then at some point Knarly can say “therefore” after we are far enough down this tortured path that we just don’t want to retrace our steps.
That is why it is important to pick apart the pieces before he drags you and them into the abyss of his mind.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Wrong again shcb,
The site has reams of errors and mis-statements, it was just not worth anyone’s time to go through it point by point. If I recall correctly, they still have bogus information about supposed molten metal (a point you conceded long ago.)
What turned me off is that they actually claim there is a VIDEO OF THE DAMAGED SIDE OF BUILDING 7 AS IT COLLAPSES – without providing any references for it. If you can show me that such a video actually exists (good luck schmuck), I will reconsider the rest of their supposed evidence in more detail.
As for the death orders from the president that you suggest is so easy, as usual you utterly fail to comprehend that it is was not the 3000 dead that split time into a pre and a post 911 era. Heck more than that die on the highways every few months. What was remarkable was the shock and awe. Read Shock Doctrine to fully comprehend. It was the spectacle and ensuing shock (a new Pearl Harbor) that allowed the American psyche (e.g. yours) to be sculpted into an increased militarism including embracing war on terrorism that its proponents claim will not end in our lifetimes.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:59 am
Knarly,
Your justifying the deaths of 911 to traffic accidents? Why are you going to such lengths to stand up for Islamofascists? There is a picture of the damage to Building 7 on debunking911 and interviews with firefighters that day. Close enough. I didn’t provide a link either, does that mean it’s not there?
November 1st, 2007 at 11:57 am
shcb,
You’re belittling the horrifying toll that traffic accidents inflict upon innocent American families? Tell that to the mother of a recent paraplegic.
You’re justifying the killing of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of fellow human beings in Afghanistan and Iraq – most of whom have done nothing to harm your “homeland” – based on the conspiracy by a couple dozen or so Saudi Arabians 911?
Why are you going to such lengths to ignore evidence that points to treasonous persons who were and who are in your current government and so why do you not support the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States?
The real issue was that Badfin’s link is not worthy: you base your entire case on: (a) cherry picked* statements that conflict with a vast number of other firefighter statements; and, (b) flimsy evidence of a picture that (may or may not – the picture’s veracity has NOT been confirmed) you say is “good enough” to support Badfin’s link’s claim that there is a video. A video taken from the severely damaged side of WTC7 that supposedly inequivocally shows that the damaged side of WTC7 collapsed first. That is far from good enough by any reasonable standard. It does virtually nothing to support claims made by that link. Show me the video or withdraw the claims that they made based on the utter hearsay that such a video exists. You can’t provide a link because the video as described does not exist. That is one very significant reason why the link Badfin provided is ridiculous and utter crap.
*Cherry picked – the statements may not represent the majority view of the firemen. Historians reconstruct what has happened during a historical event by taking into consideration the motives, background, knowledge and pressures upon people who have made statements, be they rulers – either the victorious or the vanquished, their spokespeople, or people whose future lives or careers have a significant stake in speaking in unison with the “official story.” As such, any cherry picked quotes from Badfin’s site is highly suspect given the enormous innaccuracies elsewhere and their self-described bias toward skepticism of anything that does not follow the official conspiracy as told by the government.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:49 pm
You answered a question with a question, that’s not an answer it’s just another question.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:25 pm
You did not ask a real question, you presented a rhetorical red herring.
I did not ask any real questions, they were rhetorical sarcasms in parody of your red herring deflections away from the real issue that the link badfin provided was ridiculous.
You’re wasting my time, just like badfins link is a total waste of time.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I thought the link was good and well written, there wasn’t anything in there that was unreasonable. You don’t see it that way of course because everything you believe in this matter is simply wrong.
November 1st, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I guess the question was a little difficult for you to answer since you don’t think Islamofascists attacked us that day.
November 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Wrong again shcb. It is likely that a number of tyrannical pseudo-Islamic fanatics were involved along with a number of fascist pseudo-Christians, and perhaps some psychopathic athiests or right wing nut jobs like the rwnj’s who proposed Operation Northwoods to President Kennedy.
Your credibility is seriously tarnished by your praise for a link that asserts the existence of a non-existent video (???) as a key component of one of its central claims; among the link’s innyumerable errors.
You don’t see it that way of course because everything you believe in this matter is simply wrong.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:48 am
It was probably just an Islamic operation without any American help, the only place my credibility has been tarnished is in your mind. The rest of the world views me as crazy as ever.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Yep, all them NORAD “games” that mirrored the actual attacks and that placed false radar blips on radar screens and that sent nearly all the fighter intercepts hell and gone away from NY & Washington prior to Tuesday September 11 – those were all the result of an Islamic devotion to the Koran, no American involvment there.
Yea right.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
But don’t take my word for it, here is somone who knows a lot more than either you or me about clandestine operation:
November 27th, 2007 at 1:57 am
And what about that wild ride story from shcb? Yeeehaw after hitting the light poles just pull back on that yoke to avoid the Pentagon lawn, sorry shcb but Boeings don’t work quite that simply, LOL:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/12672